ข้อมูลเชิงลึก - Machine Learning - # Privacy-Preserving Collaborative Training

Federated Co-Training for Privacy in Collaborative Learning

Q: How can FEDCT be adapted for applications outside of healthcare

FEDCT can be adapted for applications outside of healthcare by leveraging its privacy-preserving and collaborative training capabilities in various industries. For example, in the financial sector, FEDCT can be used to train models on distributed sensitive financial data from different institutions without compromising data privacy. This could enable the development of robust fraud detection systems or risk assessment models while ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements such as GDPR or PCI DSS. In the retail industry, FEDCT can facilitate collaborative training of recommendation systems using customer transaction data from multiple retailers. By sharing predictions on a public unlabeled dataset, retailers can collectively improve their recommendation algorithms without exposing individual customer information. Moreover, in manufacturing, FEDCT can support predictive maintenance initiatives by enabling collaboration among different factories to train machine learning models on equipment sensor data. This approach would allow factories to benefit from shared insights while protecting proprietary operational data. Overall, FEDCT's ability to collaboratively train models without pooling sensitive data makes it a versatile solution for various industries seeking to leverage the power of machine learning while maintaining data privacy and security.

Q: What are the potential drawbacks of using interpretable models in a federated learning setup

Using interpretable models in a federated learning setup has potential drawbacks that need to be considered: Model Complexity: Interpretable models like decision trees or rule-based systems may not capture complex patterns present in the data as effectively as deep neural networks. This could lead to reduced model performance compared to more complex but less interpretable models. Limited Expressiveness: Interpretable models may struggle with capturing intricate relationships between features in highly dimensional datasets, limiting their predictive capabilities compared to more sophisticated black-box models. Scalability Issues: Some interpretable models are computationally intensive and may not scale well when dealing with large volumes of distributed data across multiple clients in a federated setting. Trade-off Between Interpretability and Accuracy: There is often a trade-off between model interpretability and accuracy - highly interpretable models might sacrifice some level of predictive performance for transparency and explainability. Consensus Challenges: In federated settings where each client uses an interpretable model type (e.g., decision tree vs XGBoost), reaching consensus during aggregation becomes challenging due to differences in model complexity and expressiveness.

Q: How can the consensus mechanism in FEDCT be improved for pathological non-iid data distributions

Improving the consensus mechanism in FEDCT for pathological non-iid distributions requires addressing challenges related to label diversity among clients' local datasets: Dynamic Consensus Weighting: Implementing dynamic weighting schemes based on each client's expertise or historical performance could help adjust the influence of individual clients' predictions during consensus formation. Adaptive Label Aggregation Strategies: Developing adaptive aggregation strategies that consider label distribution shifts across clients over time could enhance the robustness of consensus labels under non-iid conditions. Ensemble Consensus Approaches: Utilizing ensemble methods such as stacking or boosting at the server-side aggregating stage could improve overall prediction quality by combining diverse perspectives from individual client predictions. 4 .Label Correction Mechanisms: Introducing mechanisms for correcting mislabeled instances within pseudo-labels generated through co-training iterations can help mitigate errors introduced by pathological non-iid distributions. By incorporating these enhancements into the consensus mechanism design within FEDCT specifically tailored towards handling pathological non-iid scenarios, it is possible to improve model convergence rates and overall prediction accuracy even under challenging distribution conditions."

แนวคิดหลัก

Federated Co-Training improves privacy in collaborative learning while maintaining model quality.

บทคัดย่อ

多くのアプリケーションで、機密データは分散されており、プライバシー上の懸念からプールすることができない。フェデレーテッドラーニングは、データをプールせずにモデルを共同でトレーニングすることを可能にし、ローカルモデルのパラメータを繰り返し集約することである。しかし、共有されたモデルパラメータからローカルデータに関する推論を行うことが可能であり、これは機密データに対する深刻な脅威をもたらす。提案されたフェデレーテッドコトレーニング（FEDCT）アプローチでは、クライアントは非ラベル付きの公開データセット上で予測を共有し、サーバーはこれらの予測の合意形成を行い、クライアントはこの合意を疑似ラベルとして使用してローカルトレーニングを行う。この方法はプライバシー向上だけでなく、任意の監督学習手法を使用することも可能にし、決定木やXGBoostなどの解釈可能なモデルも利用できる。

Customize Summary

Rewrite with AI

Generate Citations

Translate Source

To Another Language

Generate MindMap

from source content

Visit Source

arxiv.org

สถิติ

ローカルモデル数：5
データセットサイズ：CIFAR10（104）、FashionMNIST（5万）、Pneumonia（170）、MRI（900）、SVHN（35万）
通信周期：b = 700回
機密性脆弱性：VUL ≈ 0.5〜0.7

คำพูด

"Sharing hard labels substantially improves privacy over sharing model parameters."
"FEDCT achieves a model quality comparable to federated learning while improving privacy."
"FEDCT allows us to use local models that do not lend themselves to parameter aggregation used in federated learning."

ข้อมูลเชิงลึกที่สำคัญจาก

Protecting Sensitive Data through Federated Co-Training

by Amr Abourayy... ที่ arxiv.org 03-05-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.05696.pdf

Protecting Sensitive Data through Federated Co-Training

สอบถามเพิ่มเติม

How can FEDCT be adapted for applications outside of healthcare

FEDCT can be adapted for applications outside of healthcare by leveraging its privacy-preserving and collaborative training capabilities in various industries. For example, in the financial sector, FEDCT can be used to train models on distributed sensitive financial data from different institutions without compromising data privacy. This could enable the development of robust fraud detection systems or risk assessment models while ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements such as GDPR or PCI DSS.
In the retail industry, FEDCT can facilitate collaborative training of recommendation systems using customer transaction data from multiple retailers. By sharing predictions on a public unlabeled dataset, retailers can collectively improve their recommendation algorithms without exposing individual customer information.
Moreover, in manufacturing, FEDCT can support predictive maintenance initiatives by enabling collaboration among different factories to train machine learning models on equipment sensor data. This approach would allow factories to benefit from shared insights while protecting proprietary operational data.
Overall, FEDCT's ability to collaboratively train models without pooling sensitive data makes it a versatile solution for various industries seeking to leverage the power of machine learning while maintaining data privacy and security.

What are the potential drawbacks of using interpretable models in a federated learning setup

Using interpretable models in a federated learning setup has potential drawbacks that need to be considered:

Model Complexity: Interpretable models like decision trees or rule-based systems may not capture complex patterns present in the data as effectively as deep neural networks. This could lead to reduced model performance compared to more complex but less interpretable models.

Limited Expressiveness: Interpretable models may struggle with capturing intricate relationships between features in highly dimensional datasets, limiting their predictive capabilities compared to more sophisticated black-box models.

Scalability Issues: Some interpretable models are computationally intensive and may not scale well when dealing with large volumes of distributed data across multiple clients in a federated setting.

Trade-off Between Interpretability and Accuracy: There is often a trade-off between model interpretability and accuracy - highly interpretable models might sacrifice some level of predictive performance for transparency and explainability.

Consensus Challenges: In federated settings where each client uses an interpretable model type (e.g., decision tree vs XGBoost), reaching consensus during aggregation becomes challenging due to differences in model complexity and expressiveness.

How can the consensus mechanism in FEDCT be improved for pathological non-iid data distributions

Improving the consensus mechanism in FEDCT for pathological non-iid distributions requires addressing challenges related to label diversity among clients' local datasets:

Dynamic Consensus Weighting: Implementing dynamic weighting schemes based on each client's expertise or historical performance could help adjust the influence of individual clients' predictions during consensus formation.

Adaptive Label Aggregation Strategies: Developing adaptive aggregation strategies that consider label distribution shifts across clients over time could enhance the robustness of consensus labels under non-iid conditions.

Ensemble Consensus Approaches: Utilizing ensemble methods such as stacking or boosting at the server-side aggregating stage could improve overall prediction quality by combining diverse perspectives from individual client predictions.

4 .Label Correction Mechanisms: Introducing mechanisms for correcting mislabeled instances within pseudo-labels generated through co-training iterations can help mitigate errors introduced by pathological non-iid distributions.
By incorporating these enhancements into the consensus mechanism design within FEDCT specifically tailored towards handling pathological non-iid scenarios, it is possible to improve model convergence rates and overall prediction accuracy even under challenging distribution conditions."